Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38861254›Full record

Observational studyEpilepsia open2024

The cenobamate KORK study-A prospective monocenter observational study investigating cenobamate as an adjunctive therapy in refractory epilepsy, with comparisons to historical cohorts treated with add-on lacosamide, perampanel, and brivaracetam.

Bernhard J Steinhoff, Dimitra Georgiou, Tassanai Intravooth

Abstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Epilepsia open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cenobamate as add-on treatment in ultra-refractory focal epilepsy: Real-world results from The Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bernhard J SteinhoffKork Epilepsy Center, Kehl-Kork, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5995-5862
Dimitra GeorgiouKork Epilepsy Center, Kehl-Kork, Germany.
Tassanai IntravoothKork Epilepsy Center, Kehl-Kork, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6188-4503

Funding

CSRD VA 1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn Europe, cenobamate has been approved for use as an adjunctive therapy in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) with focal-onset seizures (FOS) who have not responded satisfactorily to treatment with at least two antiseizure medications (ASMs). Pivotal trials and real-world observational studies have demonstrated a high efficacy of cenobamate, even in very difficult-to-treat epilepsies. Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of add-on cenobamate in adult PWE who were prospectively monitored. We compared these results with those previously obtained for add-on lacosamide, perampanel, and brivaracetam therapy.

methodsPatients were enrolled from the CENKORK study, which is a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, monocenter cohort study of adult PWE experiencing FOS. The titration of cenobamate was performed according to the guidelines outlined in the summary of product characteristics. The primary outcome measure was the retention rate at 6 months and 1 year. In addition, we assessed seizure-free rates, the proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% seizure reduction, adverse events, and the reasons for treatment discontinuation. These outcome measures were compared with historical controls treated with adjunctive lacosamide, perampanel, or brivaracetam at our center.

resultsBetween June 2021 and 2022, 172 PWE with ongoing FOS were included. 22 cases were lost to follow-up, leaving 150 cases for the 1-year assessment. The retention rates at 6 months and 1 year were 88.7% and 80%, respectively. Seizure freedom was achieved in 14% of patients at both the 6-month and 1-year marks, while the ≥50% responder rates were 50% and 61%, respectively. The 6-month retention rate was significantly higher in cenobamate than in other ASMs (p < 0.001 for each comparator). Adverse events were significantly more common with perampanel (p < 0.001). SIGNIFICANCE: Add-on cenobamate proved to be particularly efficacious compared to our experience with other recently introduced ASMs. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This observational study was carried out in 172 adult patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy who were treated with adjunctive cenobamate. After 1 year, the data of 150 patients could be analyzed. Seizure freedom, in the preceding 3 months, was achieved in 14%. The rate of PWE continuing cenobamate was 80%. In our hands, cenobamate showed promising efficacy and tolerability even when compared to other recently introduced antiseizure medications.

Indexed as

AnticonvulsantsCarbamatesDrug Resistant EpilepsyDrug Therapy, CombinationLacosamideNitrilesPyridonesAdultAgedChlorophenolsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesAnticonvulsantsbrivaracetamCarbamatesCenobamateChlorophenolsLacosamideNitrilesperampanelPyridonesPyrrolidinonesTetrazolescenobamatedrug‐resistantepilepsyhistorical controlsmonocenterprospective

Identifiers

PMID38861254
PMCPMC11296107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.